Cu - 0 Yale - 6 final

[billhoward]

Lots of good stuff here ... that really should've been a separate thread. When you mark a forum read late at night and come back next day to find 26 new posts on one topic, as here, usually I assume someone took offense to something some else said, the topic drifts, and it's mostly oh-year-sez-you comebacks.

[Tcl123]

Schafer has had many years to figure these problems out and we still do not have a sustained NCAA tourney presence.

You say that as if that's some sort of standard for being a decent team. Consider tourney appearances since 2002 (the last 10 tournaments):

...

44 teams made it to the tournament. Six did so more frequently than Cornell. Not every team can be Michigan, North Dakota, or UNH.  Of course those teams have exactly as many titles as Cornell over the last decade.

And let's see how many Forzen 4 appearances teams had in the same 10-year span:

BC: 6
UND: 5
Maine: 4
Michigan: 4
Minnesota: 3
UNH: 2
Michigan State: 2
Denver: 2
Miami: 2
Wisconsin: 2
BU: 1
Cornell: 1
Notre Dame: 1
Bemidji: 1
Vermont: 1
CC: 1
Duluth: 1
RIT: 1


Sustained means we don't get knocked out first or second round. Making the tourney is one thing. Winning games is another.

I'm sorry.  Complaining that "only" a single Frozen Four appearance somehow represents failure? As someone who graduated in the mid-80's when we didn't make the ECAC final four let alone the NCAA's, I have little to complain about regarding our success during the Schafer era.  For those who would rather see someone else at the helm, I say be careful what you wish for.

From a 1994 grad, I have to second you on that one.

[ajh258]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

[Chris '03]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.

[Rosey]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.

Your hyperbole notwithstanding, I will again repeat a statement I've made on a number of occasions regarding Ivy League football: that while it's fabulous that these players are able to continue to play football and still get an Ivy League education, that doesn't mean I as a (former) student am obligated to watch them play. If Cornell the institution is content with competing for the ECAC crown every year as that conference slowly becomes a tinier, weaker, and less relevant walled garden, that's fine; but they should be content with fan interest dropping off as well.

The three reasons I watch Cornell hockey (as well as lacrosse) are (a) that I am emotionally connected to the University, (b) I like the college game with its personnel challenges better than the pro game, and (c) that the team is nationally competitive in the highest class within this demographic (college students). All of them are equally important. I could watch Cornell basketball or football, but frankly I don't feel like watching inferior quality sports just because I share a name on a diploma with the players. If Cornell stops being nationally competitive, I will probably lose interest: my time is precious, so I'd rather play inferior athletics than watch them. :-)

[css228]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

[ftyuv]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.

Your hyperbole notwithstanding, I will again repeat a statement I've made on a number of occasions regarding Ivy League football: that while it's fabulous that these players are able to continue to play football and still get an Ivy League education, that doesn't mean I as a (former) student am obligated to watch them play. If Cornell the institution is content with competing for the ECAC crown every year as that conference slowly becomes a tinier, weaker, and less relevant walled garden, that's fine; but they should be content with fan interest dropping off as well.

The three reasons I watch Cornell hockey (as well as lacrosse) are (a) that I am emotionally connected to the University, (b) I like the college game with its personnel challenges better than the pro game, and (c) that the team is nationally competitive in the highest class within this demographic (college students). All of them are equally important. I could watch Cornell basketball or football, but frankly I don't feel like watching inferior quality sports just because I share a name on a diploma with the players. If Cornell stops being nationally competitive, I will probably lose interest: my time is precious, so I'd rather play inferior athletics than watch them. :-)

I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

[Jim Hyla]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

I'm disappointed that there are such absurdly high standards. If your Frozen Four or bust position prevails among students, it is no wonder student attendance has been declining.

Your hyperbole notwithstanding, I will again repeat a statement I've made on a number of occasions regarding Ivy League football: that while it's fabulous that these players are able to continue to play football and still get an Ivy League education, that doesn't mean I as a (former) student am obligated to watch them play. If Cornell the institution is content with competing for the ECAC crown every year as that conference slowly becomes a tinier, weaker, and less relevant walled garden, that's fine; but they should be content with fan interest dropping off as well.

The three reasons I watch Cornell hockey (as well as lacrosse) are (a) that I am emotionally connected to the University, (b) I like the college game with its personnel challenges better than the pro game, and (c) that the team is nationally competitive in the highest class within this demographic (college students). All of them are equally important. I could watch Cornell basketball or football, but frankly I don't feel like watching inferior quality sports just because I share a name on a diploma with the players. If Cornell stops being nationally competitive, I will probably lose interest: my time is precious, so I'd rather play inferior athletics than watch them. :-)

I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

Totally agree with these standards, and I was there in 70 and 67.:-P

[Towerroad]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

I think we should give any comment by a current student great weight. The cost of education is hideous. The core of the faithful must be students or the program is not worth a damn.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

As a current student I can tell you the exact reason why student attendance has been declining. I know tons of people who'd love to have season tickets and just can't afford to shell out $260 dollars. As a result the a lot of the people who replaced them are people who thought "it might be cool to see some hockey games" and aren't tested for their dedication through "the line". If "the line" were still in place as the proof to the Athletic Department of fan commitment, instead of money as the benchmark, you'd have a far more hardcore fan base that would show up every weekend. For example, it costs less to get season football tickets at PSU for students than it does for students to have season tickets to Cornell Hockey. The Athletic Department has outpriced their best customer base.

I think we should give any comment by a current student great weight. The cost of education is hideous. The core of the faithful must be students or the program is not worth a damn.

I can attest to the accuracy of all those statements and their concerns.  I graduated last year (May 2010).  I have many friends who are sophomores and seniors.  Many of them even held season tickets last year, but absent my insistence, they could not force themselves to buy tickets this year.  All of them could not conscience spending the money with the other expenses of education and life in Ithaca.  I think that cost is why students are not coming in droves as they used to, I do not feel it is want of passion in the sport because of "lack of success" or "lack of expectations, or the University, as some have suggested:

I'm disappointed that we have such low standards. No wonder student attendance has been declining.

I would like to think that Cornellians are proud enough of their school's hockey tradition and the University holistically that Lynah will never be as overrun by opponents as Lynah East, or as silent and empty as Hobey Baker Memorial Rink, no matter how "disappointingly" the team is doing at a given time.  Cornell hockey has weathered difficult times before and the fans are still impassioned and here.  Thank goodness that such fickleness is not widespread among the Faithful.  I do not consider a 2009 appearance in the NCAA Regional Finals, a 2010 ECAC Tournament Title, and a 2011 ECAC Championship game appearance by a team that is very young and inexperienced to be harbingers of a "dark age" in Cornell hockey as some would have us believe.  Some would even have us believe that the "dark age" is upon us.

[Rosey]

I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

[Jim Hyla]

I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

I don't think he was implying CU fans said that, but that there are teams, hint, hint North Dakota, for whom...

But then, I should probably let ftyuv do the speaking.

[css228]

I'd just like to say that I think there's a middle ground.

There are teams for whom a championship is often a (reasonable) hope, a frozen four is a reasonable reach/goal, a win in the tourney is the bar, and not making the tourney is a disappointment. There are teams for whom making the tournament would be great, and a frozen four would be the highlight of the program. Can't Cornell be somewhere between?

I think it's reasonable to put our yearly hopes at a frozen four, our goal at a tourney win, and our bar at making the tournament. By that standard, this year is a disappointment. So be it; if you've set your standards such that you never disappoint yourself, you've set them too low.

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

So we're using the supreme court definition of pornography to define nationally competitive? To me, I'd like to see us make a Frozen Four once or twice a decade, make the NCAA tournament 3/4 years, and get home byes almost every year in the ECAC tournament. I think those are realistic for us. And most importantly you if you make the Frozen Four anything can happen. However, I think Schafer's teams have accomplished these standards, especially since in '05 and '06 we went to overtime in the regional finals (one in triple overtime). That's all you can ask for is a chance to be there. And the '06 team took the eventual national champs to 3OT, so any other regional and I think we have 2 Frozen Fours this decade and its a completely different conversation.

[abbottfan]

Remembering that this year was a rebuilding year that got off to a very slow start, a 4th place regular season finish and 2nd place in the ECAC tourney is not too bad. Some schools can't even do that in a good year.
However, when we have a successful team like last year's, our expectations should be much higher. In addition to a good end result, we should expect more out-of-conference wins and we should also expect wins (or at the very least well-played, close games) against other top ECAC teams (aka Yale).
And never, ever, under any circumstance should we be tied for 10th place in the ECAC with a team like Harvard (which I believe we were for a while at the beginning of this season)

[Facetimer]

With all due respect, you are representing a straw man of my position. I never said, and don't recall anyone but Facetimer implying, that Cornell should make the Frozen Four every season. I said they should be "nationally competitive". What that is is open to interpretation: I know it when I see it.

Kyle, you do know that it's possible to agree with me and still maintain credibility -- you don't have to distance yourself from me in every post.  I agree that we should be "nationally competitive" every year.  Obviously that doesn't mean we will win the championship or get a Frozen Four appearance every year.  But that should be our motivation, our expectation, and our goal.  Schafer has become complacent and has lost sight of these goals.  Trotsky's obscure (yet irrelevant) stats may be enough for some of you to justify your support for Schafer, but it is clear from this thread that many of you are also concerned with the direction of this program.  The first step back on the right path is a fresh face at the helm.